Crazy Rich Asians: How To Miscast Your Lead

Crazy Rich Asians is a romantic comedy film directed by Jon. M. Chu. It is based on the book of the same name. The plot follows economics lecturer Rachel (Constance Wu), as she travels to meet her boyfriend Nick’s (Henry Goldings), parents. Once she arrives in Singapore, she is shocked to find out that her boyfriend belongs to one of the richest families in the country.

I haven’t read the books, so my reaction is based only on the film. I thought that this was a fairly standard rom-com, I understand how it is important from a cinema diversity standpoint as this film features an almost entirely Asian cast which is something quite rare in Hollywood. However, as a rom-com this film left me going ‘eh’.

The love story between Rachel and Nick is as you would expect it to be, she feels out of place in this rich world, Nick’s mum Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), doesn’t approve of their relationship, it all seems hopeless, they break-up, they realise none of that matters and then get back together in the end, this is pretty much your standard fish out of water rom-com plot line.

The far more interesting plot line is that of the failing marriage between Astrid (Gemma Chan), and Michael (Pierre Png). Michael is resentful that he doesn’t have any agency of his own as his business ventures keep failing, he also doesn’t like the fact this wife is rich from her own money, he is deeply insecure and it says a lot about relationship power dynamics and masculinity; it also works as a nice parallel for Rachel and Nick at the start of the film. This sub-plot between two supporting character is more interesting than the main story!

As for the main two characters, Henry Golding is as effortlessly charming as always, he has charisma for days and that is needed here, as his on-screen partner Constance Wu has none. It is very hard to root for Rachel as Wu does very little to make her warm or endearing, Wu seems to think that she herself is great and that is why you should care about any character she plays, she seems to refuse to shot scenes that make her appear even slightly vulnerable. This is true of her other projects as well and it just makes her come across as a very cold person, which is not want you want from the lead character in a rom-com. She is also outperformed by Awkwafina, who plays her sidekick/best friend in the film.

Overall, I wish this film had cast someone else as it’s leading lady, or at the very least had given Gemma Chan more screen time as she is by far the best actress on screen. Golding is charming, but that only carries the film so far.

Pros.

Gemma Chan.

Henry Golding.

A step forward for Hollywood.

Cons.

Deeply average.

Constance Wu is woefully miscast.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Pet Sematary: Sometimes Dead Is Better.

Pet Sematary is a supernatural horror film directed by Kevin Kolsch; based on the Stephen King novel of the same name. The film revolves around a family that finds a graveyard behind their house, that allows things to come back from the dead, this could be animals, or it could be people, but when they come back, they come back changed.

First things first, I just need to say I had very high expectations when I went in to see this film, as I love the work of Stephen King, as well as the 1980 version of this film. As a result of that I was disappointed with it and thought that while the new version did have a few cool scenes, it wasn’t a patch on the original film.

For me the issues began with the casting of Jason Clarke as Louis Reed. I don’t like Clarke and I certainly don’t rate him as an actor. I don’t know if I just haven’t seen him in the right role, but it seems like whenever he turns up in a film, that film turns out to be bad; the list of films that prove this point is long, but some choice examples are Winchester, Terminator Genesis and Serenity, however he is the best of a bad bunch.

This film has John Lithgow in it, he plays the neighbour that tells Louis about the pet semetary in the first place, Lithgow does the best with what little he has, but he is truly wasted in this film and his best scene is a scene that involves a child slashing the tendons in the base of his leg. What a waste.

The horror of this film is also not as well done as the 80’s version. Yes, that film was campy and a bit silly, but the scenes of the sister who is bed-bound in the attic, were genuinely frightening and left an impact. However, those same scenes in the 2019 version lose a lot of there impact thanks to an over-reliance on jump scares. I have talked at length about the plague that is jump scares, so I won’t go on about it here.

Finally, and perhaps worst of all we have the ending, which is significantly different from the book and the 1980 film, this time we see that the whole family has become evil thanks to the semetary and is going to kill baby Gage and that is how the film ends, so effectively the bad guys win. This could be done in such a way where it felt natural and earned, it is not inherently a bad thing. However, the way this ending is presented to us, leaves us feeling unsatisfied and let down; which then leaves a sour taste in the mouth when thinking about this film.

Overall, yet another remake that never needed to be made, disappointing, dumb and downright boring at times, don’t waste your money, watch it on TV, or stream it on Netflix.

Pros.

John Lithgow tries.

The classic song is back, even if it is a cover.

Cons.

Stop casting Jason Clarke!

The jump scares.

The lack of anything new or interesting.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Peter Rabbit: Stone Cold Killer

Peter Rabbit is a 3D live-action/computer-animated comedy film directed by Will Gluck. The plot of the film takes inspiration from the Beatrice Potter books of the same name and sees Peter and his family trying to steal from the garden of Thomas McGregor (Domhnall Gleeson), whilst also trying to stop the romance developing between him and the rabbits beloved Bea (Rose Byrne).

What can I say about this film? The only positive I will give this film is the fact that there is nothing else quite like it, it is bizarre in both a good way and a bad way. The good way is due to the fact that Beatrice Potter is interacting with the rabbits she created, so that worked for me in a meta way. However, in the bad way we have baffling decisions like having their be a cockerel character, who openly says things to the extent of, ‘he only had kids because he thought the world was going to end tomorrow and that now he is stuck looking after them’ and ‘he hates his life’. Fear not by the end of the film he loves his life as a single father, but my question is why was this put in? The cockerel is not a main character he is incredibly throw away, so who were his ‘jokes’ aimed at, they certainly weren’t child friendly, so maybe the parents? However, I doubt parents very much would like a lot of what he was saying.

Moreover, the film decides to make Peter evil. I get that he is having a fun war of escalation with McGregor, and McGregor tries to kill Peter, but he is the villain, so it is okay for him to do it. However, Peter (James Corden), who is the hero of the tale tries to kill McGregor both by trying to make him die of an allergic reaction as well as by torturing him with bear traps, it’s sounds like I am joking, but I am not. Why is the hero of a kid’s movie doing this, why?

Furthermore, this film is aggressively dumb and teaches kid’s bad lessons. One of peter’s sister constantly throws herself of things, breaking her ribs, but it’s okay because she has more ribs to break her fall the next time she does it. In no way should this be taught to kids because not only is it not true, but it is the sort of things they might see and try and imitate.

This review has already gone long, so I am not going to go on about James Corden and how the world should leave him behind, he isn’t as annoying as usual here, but it is safe to say that still means he is incredibly annoying.

Overall, the only reason to watch this film is out of morbid curiosity, there are some hilarious moments, not a single one of them is intentional. I wouldn’t let kids watch this because it has a lot of harmful messages and because it is just trash.

Pros.

Funny when it is not trying to be.

Freakishly bizarre.

Cons.

Peter Rabbit tries to murder people.

James Corden.

Who is this film for?

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Dumplin’: And The Winner Is

Dumplin’ is a coming of age comedy film directed by Anne Fletcher. The film sees Dolly Parton obsessed teen Willowdean (Danielle Macdonald), compete in a beauty pageant despite her mother’s strong disapproval. The film tackles a lot of issues surrounding the idea of what makes a person beautiful and self-worth.

I think in regard to how this film portrays weight issues it is a triumph. Dumplin’ is proud of how she is and wishes people would see her for her rather than how she looks, there is an important message of not judging a book by its cover and self-love that is at the core of this film and I think it is one we should all heed.

A lot of things about this film are quite stereotypical, they go the way many other romantic themed coming of age films go, Willowdean doesn’t win the pageant in the end, but it doesn’t matter as she has proven something to herself and her mother Rosie (Jennifer Aniston), thereby earning her approval. However, despite the lack of originality, these plot points still hit home they still feel impactful. As anyone who has ever tried to seek approval from their parents would tell you that moment when you get it, if you get it, is incredibly rewarding and you can feel that here.

The romantic sub-plot between Willowdean and some boy, I can’t remember his name, I could take or leave: it did very little for me and also drew attention away from the inner journey that Willowdean was on as well as the relationship between her and her mum, both of which I think were better done. I enjoyed the relationship between Willowdean, and her mum and I think Aniston did a really good job showing us this character whose whole world is conventional beauty and these pageants, coming to terms with a new way of thinking and being happy for her daughter rather than trying to change her.

Overall, despite being weak in some areas and contrived in others, this film still has an important message and one that I think will resonate with a lot of people. Both Macdonald and Aniston give good performance and I think it is worth watching for their relationship alone, fascinating.

Pros.

A good message.

The relationship between Mother and Daughter.

Aniston is terrific.

Cons.

Contrived sub-plots.

The story could have been tighter, did we really need the romance storyline?

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

When The Wind Blows: The End Of The World

When The Wind Blows is a British animated disaster film directed by Jimmy Murakami. The plot of the film revolves around an old married couple James and Hilda (John Mills and Peggy Ashcroft), who are trying to survive a nuclear war by building a bomb shelter in their front room. The film is incredibly dark and has themes of death, disease and hopelessness.

I had to watch this film for one of my University classes, so I didn’t really go in with much expectation, but I have to say this is a hauntingly beautiful film in many ways and it far exceeded my expectations.

The art design for this film is unlike anything I have ever seen before. It switches between different styles of animation quite often with each bringing a significantly different feel. From an artistic viewpoint, colour is used very specifically in this film for a variety of reasons, to show loss and devastation as well as to show hope. This colour symbolism is very on the nose, but it is that way by design, this film knows what it is and knows what its message is, and it wants to be very clear about it. When The Wind Blow is an anti-war film through and through.

This film is from the director of beloved Christmas hit The Snowman, but this is very unlike his previous work. Despite having a low age rating, this film is definitely not suited for kids to watch, it is disturbing and traumatic, but in reality, that is how nuclear war would be. The film ends and if you don’t want spoilers skip ahead, with both of the main characters dying of radiation poisoning, this is incredibly sad, but realistic. This film is almost educational as it shows the effects a nuclear war would have on people as both character get sicker and sicker across the film, it also encourages people to be critical free thinkers and question what they are told: because ultimately a big part of the film is that James believed every word the government said to him and that is what killed him.

Overall, this film won’t be for everyone, it is upsetting and depressing, but it is also important to see because it has a lot to say about war, about society and for that I will say it is a must see!

Pros.

The message.

The music.

The animation.

The ending.

Cons

It is incredibly bleak.

4/5

Justice League Dark: The Mystical Side Of DC

Justice League Dark is an animated science fantasy superhero film. The plot revolves around a team of DC Superheroes, the more mystical ones, who have to investigate a pattern of strange behavior that has turned fatal. The Justice League themselves can’t understand the problem, so it is down to Batman (Jason O’Mara), and his strange collection of allies to save the day.

*Justice League Dark is one of my favourite DC comics, I have read many runs of the team over the years, so when I heard about this project, I knew I had to check it out. I was disappointed, this was an incredibly average film, nothing more, nothing less.

I will admit it was nice to see the team of Constantine (Matt Ryan), Zatanna (Camilla Luddington), and Deadman (Nicholas Turturro), get together; furthermore, it was nice to see Matt Ryan return to play Constantine, he is fairly synonymous with the character to me. However, my issue was the overall story just felt flat. The best issues of the comic have strong horror elements, but I didn’t get that here, other than the shades and a few other things it was mainly without horror.

What’s more though I liked Constantine I felt that a lot of the other characters were short-changed so that he could have more screen time. An example of this would be Swamp Thing (Roger Cross), who has been a major part of the team before in the comics, here only gets a few lines. Worst of all after he gets defeated, he just goes away and we don’t see him again, which feels like a big unresolved plot thread.

As I said before, this film is everything I would expect from a Justice League Dark film, a group of the more mystical DC heroes fighting against a supernatural opponent, but that isn’t enough to sustain my interest across the film’s runtime, I wanted more. More depth to the characters, more scope to the narrative, I don’t know exactly what but, something that felt better than bog standard.

Overall, this film fell short my expectations, it didn’t wow me in anyway, in fact it annoyed me a lot of the time. I wish they had put more time and energy into the characters and the story overall, if they had this might have been something special.

Pros.

Matt Ryan.

It is nice to see all of the characters team up.

A solid foundation.

Cons.

Other than Constantine and Zatanna very weak characters.

How they handled Swamp Thing.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Bling Ring: Crime, Fashion And Celebrity

The Bling Ring is a satirical crime film, written directed and produced by Sofia Coppola. The film tells the tale of the real-life Bling Ring a group of teenagers who robbed the homes of famous Hollywood celebrities when they were out of town, their victims included Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and Orlando Bloom.

I have to say for years I had no interest in this film, but when someone told me recently that it was directed by Sofia Coppola, the person behind Lost In Translation and The Beguiled, I decided to give it a go. To describe this film in a sentence, it is the very definition of style over substance. I understand that might have been an intentional choice on the part of the director, but it works to the film’s detriment.

The cinematography and editing of the film of the film is all very flashy and looks pretty, but overall it feels incredibly dated. There is a slow-motion sequence of the gang walking down the street to the song Power by Kayne West and it feels incredibly 2013. However, some of the film’s elements like the random inclusion of interviews here and there do a lot to breakup the film and keep it engaging.

The story itself is interesting, we are invited into the world of these selfish self-absorbed teenagers who think there is nothing more important than being rich and famous, they are the epitome of the words vapid and vain. We root against these characters and want to see them fail, though the film makes you think is it really the characters fault or is it the culture they have been raised in?

The social commentary elements add some depth to this film, but not as much as you would like. It still feels very shallow.

The cast is fine and serviceable, but they are nothing special. The main characters, I can’t remember their names, are entirely eclipsed by Emma Watson’s character who is a supporting character at best. Watson is basically playing herself, if a slightly bad version, because as I often say she can’t act. Her character is very hateable, and the ending really hits that home.

Overall, this film feels like it has ideas of grandeur, of being an art house film that has something to say about society, but instead it feels hollow and lacking, which is a shame as this film had potential.

Pros.

Interesting story.

Social commentary.

Sofia’s style.

Cons.

Emma Watson can’t act.

It feels dated.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Colour Out Of Space: Nicolas Cage And H.P Lovecraft, Terror And Mania

Colour Out Of Space is a horror film directed by Richard Stanley. It is an adaption of the H.P Lovecraft story of the same name and marks the start of a Lovecraft trilogy that Stanley wants to direct. The plot follows a family of farmers whose life starts to take a sinister turn when a meteor crashes in their front garden; said meteor and the things that come out of it interfere with time and space and create monstrosities.

This film is everything you would expect from a Lovecraft horror film, monsters from a hellish other plane, grotesque mutated humans that make your skin crawl and a deep and unrelenting sense of existential dread and terror. Straight from the beginning when we are introduced to Lavinia (Madeleine Arthur), we see the mystical elements that make up this story and the wider Lovecraft universe.

Adding to this sense of madness Nicholas Cage plays Nathan, Lavinia’s father, he is just a humble farmer and family man. As the film progress we see Nathan become more and more insane as his life slowly falls apart and he is forced to kill his Alpacas and his Wife and Son. Cage as we all know is fantastic when it comes to playing manic characters, he has great energy and is able to flip out on a dime. Cage’s performance in this film is just as insane as we would expect; his casting was a touch of genius.

The ending of this film is also great as it ends with this sense of calm, but also heavily implied ideas of post-apocalypse. It has a looming sense of hopelessness that I find perfectly embodies the Lovecraftian spirit.

My only issue with the film is that they could have spent more time showing us the other plane that would have been really cool, the little taster we get is great, but I would like more. Furthermore, the wider Gardner family outside of the two I have already mentioned are all fairly one note and feel paper thin; I would have liked them to have more to do.

Overall, this is a perfect Lovecraftian horror film, it has everything you would want it and boasts a fantastic Nicolas cage performance, it is slightly let down by some of the less developed characters, but it is a hell of a start to a trilogy. Overall, if you like Lovecraft, Nicolas Cage or just horror in general then this is a must see!

Pros.

A near perfect Lovecraft adaption.

A great ending.

Nicolas Cage.

The unrelenting horror.

Cons.

Slightly underdeveloped in parts.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Dracula: How To Destroy Potential In One Episode

Dracula is a three-part horror TV series developed by Sherlock creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. The story is yet another retelling of Bram Stoker’s seminal novel Dracula this time with a twist. This time around the Harker family take up a new position in the narrative, and the struggle between Dracula and Van Helsing is shown to exist across multiple lifetimes and members of the Van Helsing family.

This series left a bitter taste in my mouth. I love Dracula and I’ve read the book several times and consumed most media related to it and my issue with this iteration of the story wasn’t the changes or the fresh take, but how they chose to end it. That third episode was woeful, and that seems to be near universally accepted. Not only do they have Lucy Westenra, and the rest of the characters as 20 something club goers, which is painful to see, and informs me that Moffat and Gatiss haven’t ever actually talked to a young person in their lives. It is beyond cringey. Worse so, they decide to have Van Helsing and Dracula die together almost as lovers, which is not only a slap to the face, but also a kick in the balls.

It is such a shame that the third episode is as bad as it is, as the other two episodes were nothing sort of terrific. I liked the changes to the established story in the first few episodes as they made sense, and the direction the story took was fresh and interesting. I liked most of the stuff they were putting down, it had just the right amount of good horror mixed in as well. What’s more the new Dracula Claes Bang is magnificent; he is my favourite on-screen iteration of the character so far. He plays the character with just enough humour to be likeable and just enough menace that you never want to let your guard down. I would love to see more of his interpretation of the character, but sadly we will never get that.

Overall, the first two episodes of this show had it set to be something special, but the horrific, cringey mess that was the third episode not only shot the series in the foot, but also put a stake through its heart and set it on fire. The first two episodes would have been 5/5, but that third episode ruins it all.

Pros.

Claes Bang Is Great.

The First Two Episodes Are Magnificent.

Some Of The Changes Work.

Cons.

The Cringe Inducing, Lore Destroying, Baffling Third Episode.

The Idea Of Having Dracula and Van Helsing Romantically Linked.

3/5 and that’s being generous.

Reviewed By Luke

The Witcher: A New Fantasy King Rises

The Witcher is a fantasy drama series based on the novels by Andrzej Sapkowski. The plot of the series revolves around Geralt of Rivia (Henry Cavill), a Witcher, a mutant who hunts monsters. Over the course of the series we see Geralt try to escape destiny and his responsibility towards Princess Cirilla (Freya Allan), a child whose fate is tied to Geralt’s through the law of surprise. The series builds to these two characters meeting.

I have to say before I get into this review, I am a huge Witcher fan, I love the games and the books. So, I had been eagerly awaiting this series for quite some time. This series does play homage to both of these, that have come before, taking elements from both. I would say it probably leans more towards the books in terms of faithfulness.

When I first saw him on screen, I wasn’t quite sure how I felt about Cavill as Geralt, but he did grow on me overtime. I think Cavill did a good job as the character and I can’t wait to see where he takes the character in the next season. I think he especially did a good job with the voice; he sounds just like the voice actor from the game; if you close your eyes and listen you will see what I mean.

The breakout star of the series for me is Anya Chalotra as Yennefer, who did a great job. Yennefer is the love of Geralt’s life, and their relationship is a huge part of the series. I think the writing of her character was quite weak in the first few episodes, but when she becomes a full-fledged Mage in about episode 2 or 3, she becomes far more engaging.

The world of this show is fantastic it is deep and rich, it is easily one of the best fantasy worlds ever brought to the small screen. The story is told in 3 separate sequences that all take place outside of one another. Geralt has one, Ciri has one and Yennefer has one, they all come together in episode 6, but before that it can be a bit confusing to figure out what is happening and when; on second watch it all makes a lot more sense.

Overall, this is one of Netflix’s best new shows and can easily fill the void left behind by things like Game Of Thrones. If you’re a fan of the games or the books or just fantasy in general, you will love this series and it is definitely one to watch!

Ps. The fight sequences are a thing of beauty.

Pros.

A Solid Lead.

A Rich Developed World.

Multi Layered Characters.

A Loving Homage.

Anya Chalotra Is The Breakout Star.

Cons.

The Out Of Sequence Story Telling Can Be Confusing.

4.5/5

Reviewed By Luke